guest45734

1) Space is a substance which expands and contracts continuously. This expansion and contraction of space is due to quantum fluctuations constantly appearing and disappearing. The existence of Space is dependent on the existence of matter and quantum fluctuations without which space would not exist.

2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.

Would anyone agree or disagree completely with the above statements or agree in part?

In support of the ideas above the following links may cast some light as to where my ideas grew from.

guest45734

There are no gaps between stuff which are not occupied by quantum fluctuations. The reason absolute zero can never be reached is because space is full of quantum fluctuations. The Casimir effect proves the existence of quantum fluctuations.

There are no gaps between stuff which are not occupied by quantum fluctuations. The reason absolute zero can never be reached is because space is full of quantum fluctuations. The Casimir effect proves the existence of quantum fluctuations.

The problem more than half a century ago with the idea of gravity and mass, two bodies accelerating towards each other, required the idea of "negative energy" to accomodate for the rise in kinetic energy above and beyond normal gravitational attraction.

I think Dirac answered that question, well, presented a good idea re. negative energy. Space wasn't mentioned other than space being a harbour to a sea of negative energy that had "holes" in it, which 2 years later from Dirac's postulate, the holes, were "filled" with the idea of the "positron", an electron that may as well have had in all appearance the reverse magnetic field to a normal electron owing to the fact the said positronic particle moved in the opposite to a normal electron under the influence of a magnetic field. Interesting to also note that astrophysical observations account for zero anti-matter activity. And yes, there was a lot of argument on the topic at the time.

My point is, "space" "stretching" wasn't a core idea 70 or so years ago, "yet" the Casimir Effect is more often than not related to the idea of "negative energy" I'm thinking when I google the "Casimir Effect".

I'm not making any statements here, so I'm like you, "interested" in the question.

guest45734

Occupied being a clue there, things occupy space and space occupies things. Space is a dimension of nothing, it cannot be created or destroyed , it is timeless and ageless, it cannot be displaced.

Move a box that contains space from one spot to another, the space in your box in the new spot is not the same space you started with.

Space is expanding, the distance between galaxies is increasing at an accelerating rate, the outer edges of the visiible universe are moving away from us at approx 3c. The surface of space is expanding like the surface of a balloon between galaxies but is contracting around galaxies due to gravity holding the galaxies together.

The only thing that exists in the vacuum of space is quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations must therefore be the source of dark energy and the expansion of space. All virtual particles are also quantum fluctuations including the theorized graviton. There is no point in space that is not occupied by quantum fluctuations.

1) Space is a substance which expands and contracts continuously. This expansion and contraction of space is due to quantum fluctuations constantly appearing and disappearing. The existence of Space is dependent on the existence of matter and quantum fluctuations without which space would not exist.

2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.

I strongly suspect space at the quantum level is dynamic contracting and expanding due to quantum fluctuations. Without quantum fluctuations, space does not exist. In Quantum field theory all things are treated as excitations of the underlying field, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory I am suggesting that Quantum fluctuations and excitations originate from space and in fact make up everthing in the known universe.

I think Dirac answered that question, well, presented a good idea re. negative energy. Space wasn't mentioned other than space being a harbour to a sea of negative energy that had "holes" in it, which 2 years later from Dirac's postulate, the holes, were "filled" with the idea of the "positron", an electron that may as well have had in all appearance the reverse magnetic field to a normal electron owing to the fact the said positronic particle moved in the opposite to a normal electron under the influence of a magnetic field. Interesting to also note that astrophysical observations account for zero anti-matter activity. And yes, there was a lot of argument on the topic at the time.

My point is, "space" "stretching" wasn't a core idea 70 or so years ago, "yet" the Casimir Effect is more often than not related to the idea of "negative energy" I'm thinking when I google the "Casimir Effect".

Thanks for the interest. Your point ref -ve energy is of interest. I noted a couple of threads on matter anti matter on the forum, which I think missed some points. When electrons and positrons annihilate the result is 2 gamma rays with 511eV of energy. The concept of the zero energy universe is intriguing. Two entangled quantum fluctuations mirroring each other, appearing out of the vacuum, might exactly cancel each other when they disappear, partly explaining the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. Ie there is no temporary violation of the laws of thermodynamics because the sum total of two entangled quantum fluctuations mirroring each other is zero.

Space is expanding, the distance between galaxies is increasing at an accelerating rate,

Quite clearly you are only repeating what it says , this is not your own science or information. It is also not proven fact, the red shift is of bodies , not of space. Which part of space is made of nothing do you not understand?

Logged

Pure force of ones own will was the main determinant of his own success.....

The Box, Disinterested is looking for a reason for "nothing", an entity primarily made of nothing, "space", "expand". Disinterested is putting it primarily, the expansion of nothing, to the idea of "quantum fluctuations". He's rightly said that the universe is expanding and local effects keeps "stuff"/"matter" together. The issue is whether quantum fluctations are resposnisble for "nothing" expanding.

It's a tough one to debate beyond the current ideas. Disinterested has a point if the red-shift effect is in play and used as the basis for spatial expansion, namely that light is stretched in an otherwise expanding "nothingness".

The only issue I'm not sure about is where Disinterested suggests "I am suggesting that Quantum fluctuations and excitations originate from space and in fact make up everything in the known universe." while in the same context "Quantum fluctuations must therefore be the source of dark energy and the expansion of space".

So, correct me if I am wrong, quantum fluctuations originate from space "yet" quantum fluctuations are the "source" of the expansion of space? So, if space is the chicken that laid the quantum fluctuation egg, the egg makes the chicken expand?

I can see what you're saying scientifically: space gives birth to light which then as light makes the idea of space appear to be "expanding". Yet, and this is the problem, FTL expansion.

Here's another problem: if negative energy is only relevant to the local effects of gravity and an otherwise associated kinetic energy build up, how is negative energy associated to FTL, or even "how" space goes FTL?

The Box, Disinterested is looking for a reason for "nothing", an entity primarily made of nothing, "space", "expand". Disinterested is putting it primarily, the expansion of nothing, to the idea of "quantum fluctuations". He's rightly said that the universe is expanding and local effects keeps "stuff"/"matter" together. The issue is whether quantum fluctations are resposnisble for "nothing" expanding.

I have give the answer, but people do not understand the correct answer because they cannot let go of what they were taught.

Defining space - an unknown volume of geometrical points, a volume contains multiple points, the radius r between point is r=0

0+0=X1

In simple terms two adjoined points make up the smallest linear vector there is possible.

I know what you're saying about using grids to map the idea of space. Sometimes though using mathematical "grids" to map space, "empty space", "nothingness", is necessary, yet in light of other features "empty space" "harbours", it may be necessary to go above and beyond the idea of the mathematical definition, 3-D, of purely empty space?

I know what you're saying about using grids to map the idea of space. Sometimes though using mathematical "grids" to map space, "empty space", "nothingness", is necessary, yet in light of other features "empty space" "harbours" may be necessary to go above and beyond the idea of the mathematical definition, 3-D, of purely empty space?

I drew it you

Logged

Pure force of ones own will was the main determinant of his own success.....

If space is nothing, a point is irrelevant, right, unless defined by another determinant?

A point is nothing, it is relevant that a group of points are still nothing , we define it space. A volume of nothing, in the beginning there was nothing, nothing does not mean no space. Because space is nothing.

Logged

Pure force of ones own will was the main determinant of his own success.....

Can you elaborate further? If a point is nothing, and space is nothing, and you're creating a volume in space using 4 points, say, it's still nothing, right, despite how you change the point distances from each other, right?

Logged

What is physics without new ideas shed by the positive light of interest of others with new possible solutions to age old problems?

Can you elaborate further? If a point is nothing, and space is nothing, and you're creating a volume in space using 4 points, say, it's still nothing, right, despite how you change the point distances from each other, right?

You can't change the distance between the points is the exact reason space is not and cannot expand. You could not even stretch the points, all's you can do is stretch the truth. Science does not give absolute answers to most things, I objectively research, diagnose and give the absolute answer.

In simple terms , you can only enclose space by adding a boundary ''wall'' of x,y,z . You can then with imagination expand the imaginary box by expanding the imaginary walls of the box. The space inside and outside the box does not alter.

According to who or what standard of determining the volume of space and thus distance between points? I know what you're saying, don't get me wrong, yet as I said "space" as "nothing" may be "better" determined by what it "harbours"? Just an idea.

According to who or what standard of determining the volume of space and thus distance between points? I know what you're saying, don't get me wrong, yet as I said "space" as "nothing" may be "better" determined by what it "harbours"? Just an idea.

I am not sure I understood your questions correctly, could you reword please so I do not give you the wrong answer.

Logged

Pure force of ones own will was the main determinant of his own success.....